Page 1

1

  IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 347 OF 2015 (Arising out of SLP(C) NO. 976 OF 2014)

KANHSINGH & ANR                         …APPELLANTS

Vs.

TUKARAM & ORS                          …RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T

 V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.

Leave granted.

2. This  appeal  has  been  filed  by  the  appellants  

against  the  impugned  Judgment  and  order  dated  

23.07.2012 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh  

Bench at Indore wherein the High Court partly allowed  

NON REPORTABLE

Page 2

2

and disposed of the Miscellaneous Appeal No.2918 of  

2009 filed by the appellants.

 3. The necessary relevant facts are stated hereunder  

to  appreciate  the  case  with  a  view  to  determine  

whether the appellants are entitled for relief as  

prayed in this appeal.

4. On 02.07.2006, Deependra Singh Chouhan, son of the  

appellants herein, aged 27 years, was driving the  

motor cycle No. MP-09-LM-8244 along with his friend  

Ashok Sharma. The aforesaid motor cycle which was  

being ridden by Deependra met with an accident when  

it  was  hit  by  tanker  No.  MP-14-B-6645  driven  by  

Tukaram,  respondent  No.  1  herein.  Deependra  Singh  

succumbed  to  his  injuries  during  the  course  of  

treatment.

5. The claimant-appellants, parents of the deceased  

filed a claim petition before the Motor Accidents  

Claims Tribunal, Jawra, District Ratlam (M.P.) (in  

short ‘the Tribunal’) under Section 166 of the M.V.  

Act, 1988, for a compensation of Rs.27,85,000/-. The  

Tribunal by its judgment and award partly allowed the

Page 3

3

Claim  Petition  by  awarding  a  total  sum  of  

Rs.12,10,014/-.

 6. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award passed  

by the Tribunal, the appellants filed Miscellaneous  

Appeal No. 2918 of 2009 before the High Court of  

Madhya  Pradesh  at  Indore.  The  High  Court  by  its  

judgment and award dated 23.07.2012 partly allowed  

the said appeal and disposed of the same with an  

enhancement of Rs.2,00,000/-. Hence, this appeal.

 7. It has been contended by the learned counsel for  

the appellants that the courts below failed to notice  

that the deceased was 27 years of age and was posted  

as  the  Manager  at  HDFC  Bank  at  the  time  of  the  

accident. He would have served for another 35 years  

if he would have been alive and during that period  

his salary would have certainly doubled. The learned  

counsel placed reliance on the decision of this Court  

in  Vimal  Kanwar  &  Ors.  v. Kishore  Dan  &  Ors.1,  

wherein it was held thus:-

“31. In  New India Assurance  Co. Ltd. this Court noticed  

1 (2013) 7 SCC 476

Page 4

4

that  the  High  Court  determined  the  compensation  by granting 100% increase in  the income of the deceased.  Taking  into  consideration  the fact that in the normal  course,  the  deceased  would  have served for 22 years and  during  that  period  his  salary would have certainly  doubled, upheld the judgment  of the High Court….”

8. It is further contended that the courts below have  

erred in the computation of income of the deceased as  

Rs.  11,146/-  p.m.  In  the  case  of  Raghuvir  Singh  

Matolya & Ors. v. Hari Singh Malviya & Ors.2 and in  

Sarla  Verma  and  Others  v. Delhi  Transport  

Corporation & Another3, this Court observed that the  

deductions made by the Tribunal on account of HRA,  

CCA and medical allowance are done on incorrect basis  

and should have been taken into consideration the  

calculation of the income of the deceased. Therefore,  

the monthly income of the deceased should have been  

taken as Rs.15,155/- p.m.

 9. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the  

respondents contended that the High Court concurred  

2 (2009) 15 SCC 363 3  (2009) 6 SCC 121

Page 5

5

with the findings of the Tribunal on all material  

issues  of  fact  but  observed  that  the  quantum  of  

compensation in respect of loss due to death deserved  

to be enhanced by Rs.2,00,000/-. Therefore, the High  

Court  has  already  enhanced  the  compensation  

sufficiently, which does not call for interference of  

this Court with the impugned judgment.

 10. We  have  heard  the  learned  counsel  for  the  

parties. In our considered view, the courts below  

have  erred  in  taking  the  monthly  income  of  the  

deceased  at  Rs.11,146/-  p.m.  From  the  facts,  

circumstances and evidence on record, it is clear  

that the deceased was 27 years of age, working with  

HDFC as the Manager earning Rs.1,81,860/- per annum  

(i.e.  Rs.15,155/-  p.m.)  and  there  were  definite  

chances  of  his  further  promotion  and  consequent  

increase in salary by way of periodical revision of  

the  salary  on  the  basis  of  cost  of  living  Index  

prevalent in the area if he would alive and worked in  

the bank. Therefore, adding 50% under the head of  

future prospects to the annual income of the deceased  

according to the principle laid down in the case of

Page 6

6

Vimal Kanwar & Ors. (supra), the total loss of income  

comes  to  Rs.2,72,790/-  per  annum          [Rs.  

1,81,860 + (1/2 * Rs.1,81,860)]. Deducting 10% tax  

(Rs.27,279/-),  net  annual  income  comes  to  

Rs.2,45,511/-.  Deducting  1/3rd  [Rs.81,837]  towards  

personal expenses since the claimants are the parents  

of the deceased, loss of dependency comes to 1,63,674  

X 11(appropriate multiplier as per the age of the  

parent) Rs. 18,00,414/-.

11. The  Tribunal  and  the  High  Court  have  further  

erred  in  law  in  awarding  only  Rs.2,000/-  towards  

funeral expenses instead of Rs.25,000/- according to  

the principles laid down by this Court in  Rajesh &  

Ors. v. Rajbir  Singh  &  Ors.4.  Hence,  we  award  

Rs.25,000/- towards the same.

12. Further,  the  Tribunal  and  the  High  Court  have  

erred in not following the principles laid down by  

this  Court  in  M.  Mansoor  &  Anr  v. United  India  

Insurance Co. Ltd.5 in awarding a meagre sum of just  

Rs.30,000/-  under  the  heads  of  loss  of  love  and  

4   (2013) 9 SCC 54 5    2013 (12) SCALE 324

Page 7

7

affection. Accordingly, we award Rs.1,00,000/- to the  

appellants towards the same.

13. Further, we award Rs.5,00,190/- towards medical  

expenses incurred towards medical treatment.

14. In the result, the appellants shall be entitled  

to compensation under the following heads:

1. Loss of  

dependency Rs.18,00,414/-

2. Loss of love and  

affection Rs.1,00,000/-

3. Funeral expenses Rs.25,000/- 4. Medical expenses Rs.5,00,190/-

TOTAL Rs.24,25,604/-

15. The Courts below have erred in not granting the  

interest on compensation at the rate of 9% p.a. as  

per  the  principles  laid  down  in  the  case  of  

Municipal  Corporation  of  Delhi  v. Association  of  

Victims of Uphaar Tragedy6. The total compensation  

payable to the appellants by the respondent-Insurance  

Company will be Rs. 24,25,604/- with interest at the  

rate  of  9%  p.a.  from  the  date  of  filing  of  the  

6  (2011)14 SCC 481

Page 8

8

application  till  the  date  of  payment  to  the  

appellants.  

16.  Accordingly, we allow this appeal in awarding  

Rs.24,25,604/- with interest @9% p.a. The respondent-

Insurance Company shall either pay by way of demand  

draft in favour of the appellants or deposit the same  

with interest as awarded before the Motor Accidents  

Claims  Tribunal,  Jawara,  District  Ratlam,  after  

deducting the amount already paid to the appellants,  

if any, within six weeks from the date of receipt of  

the copy of this judgment. No Costs.

                  ……………………………………………………………………J.

                       [V.GOPALA GOWDA]

  ……………………………………………………………………J.                         [C. NAGAPPAN]

New Delhi, January 13, 2015